/m/hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Apparently, WAR is now the perfect statistic, and players should be judged exclusively by that metric.

What would you use to evaluate pitchers? ERA+ and IP are a good start, but that doesn't take into account unearned runs, nor defensive support which I assume you would want to factor in. WAR takes all of that into account, so as far as I'm concerned it's a perfect metric for evaluating starting pitchers (for hitters its different due to defensive and positional adjustments, and for relief pitchers it's hard to figure out how to properly include leverage).

Besides, what other stats favor Glavine over Schilling? Wins and losses is the only one that's not already taken into account with WAR. Strikeouts and walks heavily favor Schilling, but most people agree those are not relevant at the career level compared to run prevention.

I think Biggio is a HOFer but he's a lot closer to borderline than slam dunk. There are probably close to 10 guys on this current ballot who I'd rank over Biggio. I'm guessing it's the 3000 hits that's causing people to rate him so highly.

I don't see Thomas lack of election as any indication of changing standards, as you have pointed out, crowded ballot figures into it.

No? The ballot is crowded for sure, but almost all of those that are viewed to be better are saddled with PED issues. Thomas is a 500 homer hitter with a .300 avg and 2 MVP's - he's basically the 90's version of Miguel Cabrera. And he spoke out against PED's before it was cool, which some voters will love. I think he's exactly the type of player that would normally get elected 1st ballot.

Piazza is a hard one to judge since there isn't anyone remotely similar to him in MLB history. I assume you're referring to Ted Simmons in post 148, but while Simmons was a good hitter, he wasn't even in Piazza's league. Other catchers have been good hitters relative to their position, but Piazza is the only one (maaaybe Bench) that was one of the best hitters in the league, period (led league in OPS+ twice).

Like I said, Biggio and Piazza are only enough to make me suspect that standards have risen for sillyball era players. But if guys with overwhelming first ballot credentials like Thomas and Glavine don't make it - or if Maddux gets significantly lower percentages than the Ryan/Brett/Ripken types - then it'll be confirmed in my mind. Hopefully the current Gizmo percentages hold up. Electing Thomas and Glavine on the first ballot, Biggio on his 2nd, and Maddux being near unanimous would go a long ways towards convincing me that voters are at least trying to be fair and consistent.

He missed it by 38 votes on his first ballot. He was pretty close to getting in.

Yes, it was a perfectly decent debut. Not just short or anything, but certainly a figure that will get him across in a year or two. Just as we told you might be the case, rather than sailing in as you wrongly predicted. One or two voters mentioned PEDs, but that wasn't a big part of the reason 32 percent of the voters rejected him.

In 1989, Robin Yount, a two-time MVP who didn't stumble across the 3,000-hit mark (thus, a far better candidate than Biggio), got only 77 percent of the vote because he happened to be on the ballot with Brett, Ryan and Fisk (who came up short). Biggio was on a better, if more complicated ballot. He was never a lock, with or without the PED issues dogging the others on the ballot, or any idiot writer who happened to throw him in with that lot.

Like I said, Biggio and Piazza are only enough to make me suspect that standards have risen for sillyball era players. But if guys with overwhelming first ballot credentials like Thomas and Glavine don't make it - or if Maddux gets significantly lower percentages than the Ryan/Brett/Ripken types - then it'll be confirmed in my mind. Hopefully the current Gizmo percentages hold up. Electing Thomas and Glavine on the first ballot, Biggio on his 2nd, and Maddux being near unanimous would go a long ways towards convincing me that voters are at least trying to be fair and consistent.

And as Sosh is pointing out, the large quantity of deserving candidates is skewing the results more than any changing standards would mean.

As we have been arguing in one way or another on the boards is that there is legitimately 14+ candidates and outside of Maddux, there isn't a clear top candidates. Some will ignore ped taint, others will vote the best non-ped taint or some grain in between, while others will insist on continue to vote for the guys they have already committed too, leaving their open spots limited, and of course we've already seen at least one ballot where the guy thought there was no reason to vote for 10 names.

Bonds 117.6 - he used because McGwire and Sosa had previously used
Clemens 103.3 - he used too, because Canseco told him he could reverse his decline
Maddux 81.6 - umpires cheated on his behalf - saved him the trouble
Schilling 64.4 - arrogance will hurt him
Mussina 63.8 - too consistent
Bagwell 63.8 - once had a conversation with Caminiti
Glavine 62.9 - "everybody loves Tom"
F. Thomas 59.5 - "why do I need to wear a glove, when I'm not hitting?"
Walker 58.6 - Canadians have their own HOF
Trammell 57.5 - George Bell took his MVP award

Granted, they were crap before that, but his first 4 years, Glavine put up an ERA+ under 100 each time. So of the years with defenses dWAR rates as poor, only 91 was outstanding. Then he went to the Mets, and his ERA+ plummeted for the next 3 years, with defenses dWAR rates as poor, including a 93 his first year. At age 40, with a defense that ranked 4th, he was still able to crank out a 131.

Not definitive, but certainly leads credence to the notion that his defenses deserve a lot of credit for his success. Which isn't really all that surprising for a pitch to contact type of pitcher.

Now there's certainly reasonable arguments to be made that, from a value perspective or an advanced metrics perspective, relievers still are not worthy of the HOF, but I think it is worth recognizing them, and it's a good thing the voters are trying to figure out how and whom to recognize.

Relievers are back-up pitchers who for the most part couldn't cut it as a starting pitcher at some point in his past. No young talented pitcher decides he's going to be a reliever rather than a starter and no coach or manager does this until the player demonstrates a lack of endurance, variety of pitchers, health, or the ability to succeed at progressively higher levels. In these instances he is usually made into a back-up pitcher in the hope of continuing his career.

The same thing happens to players at all other positions and nobody advocates these back-up players for Hall of Fame induction. Bizarre, really bizarre, the way that successful back-up pitchers are sometimes revered. The invention of an arbitrary stat called "saves" has a big influence on Hall of Fame voters no matter how pedestrian their actual pitching stats may be.

Even the great Mariano Rivera was a starting pitcher when he first joined the Yankees at age 25 but a 5.51 ERA in his first season meant that he was converted to reliever at age 26, and he did rather well.

The increased use of back-up pitchers in recent years is simply attributable to managers coming to the realization that a fresh back-up pitcher will usually pitch better than a tired elite starter who is facing a line-up for the 3rd and 4th times. He will post terrific ERAs and peripheral stats simply by being able to go all out for a few batters, not facing batters more than once, and having the statistical advantage of coming into innings with one or two batters already retired. Closers have the added advantage of having the game stop when the winning run scores thus guaranteeing them no more earned runs being charged against them. Consider the closer who comes into a game with none out and runners on first and second. Two long flies to the outfield wall and two BB later he gets to go for a shower with a nifty "0" earned runs allowed in 2/3 IP. What starters wouldn't give to have this kind of bookkeeping.

Apparently, WAR is now the perfect statistic, and players should be judged exclusively by that metric.

I think that WAR is the cumulative impact of all the useful and meaningful metrics that exist to measure the impact of a player's performance. In the case of Glavine WAR does not pick up his "hockey pluckiness" that is such a big part, along with Andruw Jones, of why Glavine did so well with a poor strikeout rate.

And as Sosh is pointing out, the large quantity of deserving candidates is skewing the results more than any changing standards would mean.

As we have been arguing in one way or another on the boards is that there is legitimately 14+ candidates and outside of Maddux, there isn't a clear top candidates.

The packed ballot is an issue, of course, but I think it's hurting the Walker/Edgar/Kent types more than say, Frank Thomas. He's got to be considered a top candidate by pretty much everyone, no? He made most of our top 10's here on this site. For the non-SABR, MSM type voters he'd probably rank even higher than that, since they don't seem to love Bagwell/Walker/Trammell/Raines/Mussina/Schilling as much as we do. For the anti-PED crowd - and that makes up more than half the voters - he should be ranked even higher cuz better players like Bonds and Clemens aren't up for consideration. I really feel that Thomas should be a consensus top 10 player or even top 5 for many of the voters. He screams 1st ballot, IMO.

I think some are overstating a bit what it takes to be a typical 1st balloter. Maybe it used to be more rare, but in the last dozen years we've seen Winfield, Puckett, Ozzie, Murray, Molitor, and Eckersley make it on their first try. What do they have that Biggio and Thomas didn't? Winfield and Molitor made it cuz they have 3000 hits. So does Biggio, and if he's a compiler, so are they (and Murray). None of them were ever truly the best of the best. Murray made it easily cuz he hit 500 homers. So did Thomas. No, he didn't get 3000 hits too, but he walked a lot more, hit .300, won 2 MVP's, and his rate stats - even adjusting for era - pound Eddie's into the ground. I just don't see the difference from an MSM viewpoint between the 1st ballot types from a decade ago vs the best of the current ballot hopefuls that haven't or may not do it.

I just think that what is happening to the baseball hof is sad. and it's mostly self-inflicted. instead of responding to the silent majority who want to celebrate their heroes, however flawed, the hall is responding to a loud minority who are desperate to punish via exclusion.

that is not only horrible human behavior it flies in the face of the American psyche which has a long history of forgiveness.

Sure, everybody loves a good redemption story. That's because everybody likes good theater (see also 90% of hollywood scripts). I can point you to plenty of such cases in any other industrialized nation. It's not a uniquely American trait.

That aside, I think you are vastly overrating the extent to which Vick has been forgiven. And really, he is the only one from the bunch, who did anything all that in need of public forgiveness. A guy with a substance abuse problem, and a guy who cheated on his wife? *Yawn*

Then, on the other side, the US is the only industrialized nation to still practice the death penalty. Sentences for equivalent crimes are far higher than in any other western nation. The fact that there is an entity, which can accurately be described as "the prison-industrial complex" is a huge indictment on America's capacity to forgive.

Take also into account the post 9/11 mindset (also similarly displayed during e.g. the cold war, and WW2), which was generally focused on "we are going to make them pay". The general indifference to torture, and civilian "collateral damage" in pursuit of this goal.

But it's all good I guess, as long as you can warmly embrace a guy who cleaned up his act after using drugs. If that's your idea of forgiveness, you can keep it.

I think that WAR is the cumulative impact of all the useful and meaningful metrics that exist to measure the impact of a player's performance.

That's nice. Put on you helmet before you go for a bike ride.

In the case of Glavine WAR does not pick up his "hockey pluckiness" that is such a big part, along with Andruw Jones, of why Glavine did so well with a poor strikeout rate.

Strike out rate. Yes, let's ignore the results on the field and whine about the aesthetics of how those results were achieved instead.

Tom Glavine is a HOF pitcher. Tom Glavine was a slightly better pitcher than Mike Mussina, due almost entirely to his longevity. Tom Glavine is a better HOF candidate than Mussina because of the longevity, being better in actual results on the field, and being a pivotal part of the Braves resurgence and dynasty.

I wouldn't complain about a vote for Moose. He was a top tier pitcher for good clubs. Glavine was better.

The Kenny Rogers bashing is a bit unfair. He doesn't belong in the HOF, but just going by the numbers, he doesn't belong in the Hall any less than any of the guys in the 2 and 3 point tiers.

He's seriously underrated, I assume due to him spending the vast majority of his career in the wrong era in the wrong ballpark and lacking much of a peak. Most people will also remember him more for disastrous playoff performances for the NY teams (I personally will never forgive him for the '99 NLDS) than for his 23 scoreless innings in the '06 playoffs for Detroit.

219-156, 107 ERA+, and > 50 WAR. I'm guessing most of the people who mock him would be surprised by those numbers.

The Kenny Rogers bashing is a bit unfair. He doesn't belong in the HOF, but just going by the numbers, he doesn't belong in the Hall any less than any of the guys in the 2 and 3 point tiers.

I don't disagree with that, actually. No rational vote would vote for Mattingly or LuGo or Kenny Rogers. Rogers was a good pitcher, no doubt, and he pitched in unfriendly environments. But the height of the man's career was walking Andruw Jones to lose an NLCS. There's no reason to have any points awarded after the Fred McGriff tier, unless you want to give a cookie to Jack Morris voters. This entire exercise screams of Tango being Tango.

RA+ equivalent record 194-173. Compares unfavorably to Jack Morris, with RA+ equivalent record 226-199. Shares with Morris the attribute of W-L much better than RA+ equivalent W-L. Some pitchers to compare Rogers to: John Candelaria, Charlie Hough, Bob Friend, Curt Simmons. That's a list of good pitchers, but it's not a Hall of Fame (or Hall of Merit) list.

David Wells, with RA+ equivalent of 207-175 is clearly better than Rogers and more directly comparable to Morris.

i think this is pretty self evident but just from memory folks who seem to be at a nadir professionally and then regained their footing:

michael vick
robert downey jr
mark sanford

i am sure there are all kinds of sharpies here who can twist the above around to try and invalidate the basic point in that folks in the us are always a s7cker for someone turning things around.

just needs some time and the right pitch.

Harveys, I agree with your larger point about Americans giving celebrities a second chance. But, that always requires at least a gesture of contrition, even if it's a false gesture.

I bet if Bonds or Clemens got up and said: "I cheated, it was wrong, and my performance/stats were artificially inflated over what they otherwise would have been.", they'd be forgiven, and elected in short order.

Instead, they continue to deny, deny, deny, and act like the jackasses they have always been.

No they wouldn't. The narrative is set, and it makes no difference one way or another what they say.

One thing to note about Harveys' examples: Vick is still capable of being an NFL player. Downey can still act and still be cast in productions. It is still possible for Sanford to be elected to some political office. Bonds, or Clemens, or McGwire, or Sosa - they're not going to be playing any more professional baseball, so it's not the same thing.

I bet if Bonds or Clemens got up and said: "I cheated, it was wrong, and my performance/stats were artificially inflated over what they otherwise would have been.", they'd be forgiven, and elected in short order.

Isn't that pretty much what McGwire did? And his voting total didn't rise one bit (it actually dropped a little).

Morty: what I really meant by that remark is that the story people are paying attention to about Vick has to do with his performance last Sunday or the week before; with Downey you can be talking about his latest performance; Sanford can at least send out constituent newsletters. A batting coach may be visible on the TV screen but there aren't really a lot of current stories - he is still discussed in the past tense.

Nothing says more about how the BBWAA would react if given "guidance by the HoF" on handling PED users than what happened with regard to Pete Rose. The HoF and MLB were skewered for taking the decision on Rose out of the hands of the voting population. They'd be raked over the coals again for taking the decision on guys who were never even disciplined by MLB for their transgressions out of the hands of the voting population, and they'd be attacked even worse if they gave explicit guidance that those players were to be judged on their on-field performance without regard to their possible PED usage.

The guardians of morality want to punish the users, but don't want the accountability of being the ones issuing the punishment - so they whine about "needing guidance from the HoF" so that they can be taken off the hook. Personally I think the HoF and MLB are being smart by "not" taking any action, one way or the other, even if it does contribute to the situation we have now, because it makes it all too clear who the real culprits are.

Nothing says more about how the BBWAA would react if given "guidance by the HoF" on handling PED users than what happened with regard to Pete Rose. The HoF and MLB were skewered for taking the decision on Rose out of the hands of the voting population. They'd be raked over the coals again for taking the decision on guys who were never even disciplined by MLB for their transgressions out of the hands of the voting population, and they'd be attacked even worse if they gave explicit guidance that those players were to be judged on their on-field performance without regard to their possible PED usage.

I think if they took it out of their hands completely, you'd definitely see some complaining. If they simply offered some guidelines, I think most voters would appreciate it. Of course, it's a group of some 600 people, so I doubt there'd be a single response to anything the HoF did on the issue, though it wouldn't stop anyone from ascribing the handful of opinions to the entire body anyway, much like you're doing here.

The guardians of morality want to punish the users, but don't want the accountability of being the ones issuing the punishment - so they whine about "needing guidance from the HoF" so that they can be taken off the hook. Personally I think the HoF and MLB are being smart by "not" taking any action, one way or the other, even if it does contribute to the situation we have now, because it makes it all too clear who the real culprits are.

No, the HoF is being smart about not taking any action one way or the other because this is actually a polarizing issue, the BTF position notwithstanding. The Hall would rather the BBWAA take the bullets, from both sides, than risk pissing off the Andy faction or the Ray faction. Of course, both of those sides think their side is the only one that matters.

169: Booey have you looked at the backlog and the ballot strength for those first ballot guys you mentioned? I have a hunch if you do, you'll find both the backlog and the debut candidates were probably pretty weak.

No, this one. In terms of the PEDs and the Hall of Fame, BTF is overwhelmingly in the let 'em in category. On Page 2 of the BTF HoF thread, for example, 42 of 49 posters chose Bonds, and two of the naysayers left him off for strategic reasons.

Yes, we have a few strong anti-roiders in our midst, but the split can't be much more than 90-10.

169: Booey have you looked at the backlog and the ballot strength for those first ballot guys you mentioned? I have a hunch if you do, you'll find both the backlog and the debut candidates were probably pretty weak.

I have, and yes, the ballot was much weaker back then. But again, I don't think the packed ballot affects all candidates equally. I think Biggio and especially Thomas and Glavine will be viewed as top 5 or at least top 10 candidates by a vast majority of the traditional, anti-PED, milestone loving MSM voters. The ballot backlog hurts the SABR type guys without obvious milestones like Bagwell and Walker a lot more than it does Thomas/Biggio/Glavine.

And as of now, the BBWAA is doing a fine job of proving me wrong, which I'm totally okay with.